Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:43:00 -
[1]
21516 votes equals zero influence in the csm!
We can do better!
Please support this proposal for a better voting system in future csm elections.
This is not about grief or tears regarding the current election - I wish the newly elected CSM all the best.
But it is a fact, that the current voting system is flawed:
1) The current system is not proportional.
2) Many votes are wasted on candidates who are either sure winners or sure loosers.
3) The current system generates uncertainty and encourages tactical voting while discouraging honest voting.
Do you want to know more?
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:49:00 -
[2]
I'm not sure if its against the rules to create a 3rd party exit poll. You can do that if you REALLY wanted to track how the count is going? But you'd need to work hard to get it out there and get it used. :)
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:56:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Suveitar on 27/03/2011 21:57:42 Sorry?
Im basing my numbers on this dev blog.
Oh - and congratulation on your election :)
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: White Tree on 27/03/2011 22:01:03 Exit polls are used to measure the votes for candidates by asking the person after they've voted who they voted for. This can happen during the voting process.
e: Thankyou.
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:51:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Suveitar on 27/03/2011 22:56:46
Originally by: White Tree Effectively what you're referring too is a system of primaries.
No. My proposal has nothing to do with primaries.
Originally by: White Tree This is how democracies work, groups of people come together to form parties whose concerns are similar and they've used their collective might to ensure their chosen candidates are elected.
And this is exactly what IsnŠt supported in the current voting system which has absolutely no incentives to forming a party, since votes cannot be transferred between two different candidates.
Basically you can solve the problem of vote wasting and proportionality in two ways:
a) by allowing parties to transfer votes between party candidates (this is what you find in multiparty systems)
b) or by allowing voters to transfer their single vote between different candidates they prefer (and this is what I propose in my post in the assembly hall).
Both options would be a huge improvement to the current voting system.
If EVE were a "real democracy" with "real issues" at stake, I would allways argue for option A, since such a system encurages the formation of political parties and some meassure of political stability.
Option B on the other hand, is ideal to the "player democracy" of EVE, since it leaves room for individual candidates with a fresh idea, and since "political stability" is really not an issue of much concern in this setting :).
Originally by: White Tree Can you truly state that the voters of last years CSM elections weren't entirely capable rationalizing their votes by voting for their own interests?
Im stating no such thing. But Id like people to be able to vote for the candidate they genuinely prefer - without having to take tactical considerations into account.
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:55:00 -
[6]
Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 23:04:00 -
[7]
Originally by: White Tree Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.
And Im not frowning upon tactical voting either. As you say it is an inherent part of the system. Im merely proposing a voting system that will reduce (but not eliminate) the impact of tactical voting, and allow more voters to have a real impact on the composition of the CSM.
If there is no support for the idea I can live it just as well - But as a real life student of electoral systems and their de facto political consequences I just thought Id let you know that there are in fact better alternatives than the current voting system for the CSM.
And now Ill go and blow up some ships! Yaarrg!
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 00:55:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Suveitar The remaining 21516 votes (43,8%) translates into zero influence...
Maybe you and they should have voted for someone who had chance.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: White Tree Tactical voting occurs everywhere. Its stunning how often it occurs. I'm neither endorsing nor frowning upon its use, but what I'm saying is that it may be an inherent part of the system.
STV doesn't really suffer from tactical voting issues, I think.
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 01:43:00 -
[10]
Those votes were not wasted. Those people still picked who they thought would be a good choice (or they may not have, you never know).
|
|
William Loire
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 02:21:00 -
[11]
Are you asking for proportional representation? Because that won't work with a system where each representative has to be flown to Iceland twice a year.
|
Ari Chu
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 02:31:00 -
[12]
The only "Wasted" votes are those in excess of what was needed to win, with the exception of any candidate who blows away the field - then having excessive votes provides an argument of having a mandate. Just because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean that you wasted your vote. Sometimes voting for a candidate you suspect will lose can provide leverage for the policies they supported. ---
"The Galaxy is only as big as you make it." - presumably Eve Game Designers. |
Dani Nardieu
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 04:58:00 -
[13]
Alternates have often played a role in the CSM process and post on the internal forums and stuff so you should include those votes.
And anyway, the issue with your system is that people barely know one person they want to vote for. If you force them to vote for 3 or even 5 (half of CSM, really ?), than a lot of those choices will be random and people would get undeserved votes when they got no real support.
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Pirokobo Maybe you and they should have voted for someone who had chance.
This is exactly my point.
The csm election is more about tactical voting - selecting a candidate who is likely to get elected (but not too likely, cause then youŠll be wasting your vote on a sure winner) - than it is about honest voting - selecting the candidate you actually prefer to have on the council.
You might want to take a look at this post.
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard Those votes were not wasted. Those people still picked who they thought would be a good choice (or they may not have, you never know).
In multiparty elections the percentage of wasted votes is very rarely above 10% (due to the transfer of votes among party candidates).
With Single Transferable Vote the percentage of wasted votes would also be considerably less than the current 43% in the recent election.
My main issue with the current system is thus that it performs very poorly (it wastes many votes) with regards to tranfer voter preferences into actual seats on the council.
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 09:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: William Loire Are you asking for proportional representation? Because that won't work with a system where each representative has to be flown to Iceland twice a year.
I am not asking for an expansion of the number of seats on the CSM, if that is what you are asking?
I am lobbying for proportional representation in the sense, that each seat on the council will be worth the same amount of votes.
Please read my post in the assembly hall for the finer details .
And thanks for the feedback everybody! My proposal isnt the only way to solve the issues with our current voting system, but I think that it is a relevant issue for the CSM to consider prior to the election next year.
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:22:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dani Nardieu
And anyway, the issue with your system is that people barely know one person they want to vote for. If you force them to vote for 3 or even 5 (half of CSM, really ?), than a lot of those choices will be random and people would get undeserved votes when they got no real support.
EXACTLY, that's why we need 2 rounds of voting. First to check which candidates have any support at all (elect 2x-3x the amount of CSM delegates), then choose among them the actual delegates based on the principle of lesser evil.
Currently there is no way for non-alliance player to know which candidate has any chances of winning since most are voted by closed groups so the information about certain candidate's electability is essentially closed to the general public.
|
Killer2
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:39:00 -
[18]
I have to admit, your proposed voting system seems a little complicated.
I don't believe any vote is wasted as in every election there are always going to be clear winners and clear losers. The fact that official results aren't published until after voting is closed means that a single vote has the potential to be a swing vote between a CSM seat and an alternate seat, or an alternate seat and no seat at all.
|
spookydonut
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:43:00 -
[19]
What you actually need is preferential voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
When you vote on the CSM, you number all the candidates from 1 to n. Or, you could just simply vote for a single candidate and leave it up to that candidate's preferences to decide where the vote flows, as if they had filled in the rest of the numbers for you.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 12:50:00 -
[20]
The votes weren't wasted. They were blood for the Blood God. Khorne is pleased. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:14:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Suveitar on 28/03/2011 14:18:41
Originally by: Killer2 I have to admit, your proposed voting system seems a little complicated.
Youre right that the inner workings of the Single Transferable Voting system are very complex indeed. But for the individual voter it isnt difficult to rank a few candidates in order of preference. Then the system works behind the scenes to ensure that every voters gets maximum influence for their vote.
In contrast our current system for csm election is very easy to understand, but it gives the voters a lot to worry about, and turns the election into a pokergame.
So do you want a complicated system that is good at transferring preferences for all voters into seats, or do you want a simple system that ignores the input of nearly half the voters?
|
Suveitar
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:18:00 -
[22]
Originally by: spookydonut What you actually need is preferential voting.
And this is actually what I propose! The single transferable vote is a form of preferential voting.
|
Dirk Decibel
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:21:00 -
[23]
Well, you really need to take into account the votes given to alternates. You can bet ur sweet arse they are going to be needed again.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |